Christie’s Garners $11M at London Auction

Christie’s brought in GBP 8.3 million ($10.7 million) from its Important Jewels sale in London on Wednesday, with pearls dominating the event.

The priciest was a cut-cornered rectangular step-cut, 18.02-carat, D-color, VVS1-clarity, type IIa diamond ring, which fetched GBP 881,250 ($1.1 million) against an estimate of GBP 800,000 to GBP 1.2 million ($1 million to $1.6 million). Four of the top 10 lots were jewelry items featuring pearls, which sold for well over their high estimates.

An emerald, diamond and cultured-pearl necklace by Meister, set with a rectangular cut-cornered, 10.99-carat emerald, garnered GBP 275,000 ($355,943), almost 23 times its GBP 12,000 ($15,532) high estimate. Meanwhile, a necklace containing 45 natural pearls went for GBP 268,750 ($347,922), well above its GBP 120,000 ($155,351) high valuation.

A pair of 19th-century natural-pearl earrings, which previously belonged to Eugénie de Montijo, the last empress of France and wife of Emperor Napoleon III, fetched GBP 237,500 ($307,375), smashing its GBP 80,000 ($103,537) upper estimate. A set of button-shaped, natural-pearl and diamond earrings, went for GBP 187,500 ($242,696), exceeding its GBP 80,000 ($103,537) high presale valuation.

Other notable items included a diamond necklace by Shinde, which garnered GBP 539,250 ($697,908), nearly three times its GBP 200,000 ($258,844) high valuation, and a Van Cleef & Arpels diamond necklace from the mid-20th century, which swept past its GBP 150,000 ($194,206) upper valuation, bringing in GBP 347,250 ($449,587).

Source: DCLA

Christie’s Garners $11M at London Auction

Christie’s brought in GBP 8.3 million ($10.7 million) from its Important Jewels sale in London on Wednesday, with pearls dominating the event.

The priciest was a cut-cornered rectangular step-cut, 18.02-carat, D-color, VVS1-clarity, type IIa diamond ring, which fetched GBP 881,250 ($1.1 million) against an estimate of GBP 800,000 to GBP 1.2 million ($1 million to $1.6 million). Four of the top 10 lots were jewelry items featuring pearls, which sold for well over their high estimates.

An emerald, diamond and cultured-pearl necklace by Meister, set with a rectangular cut-cornered, 10.99-carat emerald, garnered GBP 275,000 ($355,943), almost 23 times its GBP 12,000 ($15,532) high estimate. Meanwhile, a necklace containing 45 natural pearls went for GBP 268,750 ($347,922), well above its GBP 120,000 ($155,351) high valuation.

A pair of 19th-century natural-pearl earrings, which previously belonged to Eugénie de Montijo, the last empress of France and wife of Emperor Napoleon III, fetched GBP 237,500 ($307,375), smashing its GBP 80,000 ($103,537) upper estimate. A set of button-shaped, natural-pearl and diamond earrings, went for GBP 187,500 ($242,696), exceeding its GBP 80,000 ($103,537) high presale valuation.

Other notable items included a diamond necklace by Shinde, which garnered GBP 539,250 ($697,908), nearly three times its GBP 200,000 ($258,844) high valuation, and a Van Cleef & Arpels diamond necklace from the mid-20th century, which swept past its GBP 150,000 ($194,206) upper valuation, bringing in GBP 347,250 ($449,587).

Source: DCLA

The Curious Case of Fluorescence

The diamond industry has a complicated relationship with fluorescence.

Historically, both the trade and consumers saw value in a diamond that fluoresced under ultraviolet light. The perception was that it added to the color of the diamond while also providing various niche marketing opportunities. Take the ’80s disco era, when neon was in and a glow-in-the-dark diamond might have been cool.

But the positive view of fluorescence has changed over time — at least, from the trade’s perspective. Various periods of oversupply, and one or two scandals related to the subject, led the trade to discount diamonds with varying degrees of fluorescence. We explore this issue in the November issue of Rapaport Research Report and present our updated guidelines to what those discounts are. The higher the color, the more fluorescence negatively affects price.

The discounts are puzzling. The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) published a comprehensive paper on fluorescence in 1997, in which it challenged the notion that this trait had a negative impact on higher color diamonds. If anything, the GIA concluded, fluorescence adds to lower colors, and it does not affect a diamond’s transparency.

Most importantly, the GIA found that the jewelry-buying public saw no difference between diamonds with fluorescence and those without. It wasn’t an issue for the consumer back then, and it isn’t today, according to most of the diamond professionals we consulted for the report.

If that is true, the trade is missing out on an opportunity. The biggest challenge facing the industry is figuring out how to broaden demand, which has narrowed over the past decade as buyers have become more specific in their requirements. As a result, there is an oversupply of diamonds that are difficult to sell. In many cases, it’s because they are fluorescent goods.

We’re seeing a recovery in demand for stones with faint or no fluorescence, and continued weakness among diamonds in the medium, strong and very strong categories. That’s difficult to understand if the consumer isn’t too bothered about the issue.

And therein lies the opportunity: Savvy diamantaires and jewelers are buying fluorescent goods and marketing them as a specialized product. Some big sellers — most notably Alrosa — have a lot of fluorescence in their production and are trying to create a category for those stones. Considering that the industry needs an avenue for offloading its fluorescent diamonds, it should be encouraging initiatives like these.

Source: Diamonds.net

The Curious Case of Fluorescence

The diamond industry has a complicated relationship with fluorescence.

Historically, both the trade and consumers saw value in a diamond that fluoresced under ultraviolet light. The perception was that it added to the color of the diamond while also providing various niche marketing opportunities. Take the ’80s disco era, when neon was in and a glow-in-the-dark diamond might have been cool.

But the positive view of fluorescence has changed over time — at least, from the trade’s perspective. Various periods of oversupply, and one or two scandals related to the subject, led the trade to discount diamonds with varying degrees of fluorescence. We explore this issue in the November issue of Rapaport Research Report and present our updated guidelines to what those discounts are. The higher the color, the more fluorescence negatively affects price.

The discounts are puzzling. The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) published a comprehensive paper on fluorescence in 1997, in which it challenged the notion that this trait had a negative impact on higher color diamonds. If anything, the GIA concluded, fluorescence adds to lower colors, and it does not affect a diamond’s transparency.

Most importantly, the GIA found that the jewelry-buying public saw no difference between diamonds with fluorescence and those without. It wasn’t an issue for the consumer back then, and it isn’t today, according to most of the diamond professionals we consulted for the report.

If that is true, the trade is missing out on an opportunity. The biggest challenge facing the industry is figuring out how to broaden demand, which has narrowed over the past decade as buyers have become more specific in their requirements. As a result, there is an oversupply of diamonds that are difficult to sell. In many cases, it’s because they are fluorescent goods.

We’re seeing a recovery in demand for stones with faint or no fluorescence, and continued weakness among diamonds in the medium, strong and very strong categories. That’s difficult to understand if the consumer isn’t too bothered about the issue.

And therein lies the opportunity: Savvy diamantaires and jewelers are buying fluorescent goods and marketing them as a specialized product. Some big sellers — most notably Alrosa — have a lot of fluorescence in their production and are trying to create a category for those stones. Considering that the industry needs an avenue for offloading its fluorescent diamonds, it should be encouraging initiatives like these.

Source: Diamonds.net

$1B jewelry heist in Germany

Burglars stole jewelry, diamonds and gemstones valued at more than $1 billion from the historic Green Vault museum in Germany on Monday morning, according to media reports.

The thieves gained access to the Dresden museum by twisting back iron grill bars on a ground-floor window, after a nearby fire at a power distributor likely disabled the museum’s alarm system, German news outlets said.

The Green Vault collection, which is housed in Dresden Castle, was created in the 18th century by Saxon ruler Augustus the Strong. It contains a large assortment of jewels, including a 648-carat sapphire, a gift from Russia’s Czar Peter the Great. The Saxon crown jewels are also stored there. However, one of the collection’s most valuable pieces, the 41-carat Green Diamond, is believed to be safe, having been on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York at the time of the heist, German newspaper Bild noted.

“Not only were the state art collections robbed, but also we Saxons,” tweeted Saxony Minister President Michael Kretschmer. “You cannot understand the history of Saxony without the Green Vault. The valuables here have been hard won by the people of our free state for many centuries.”

Police have closed the museum and are searching for the criminals.

Source: DCLA

$1B jewelry heist in Germany

Burglars stole jewelry, diamonds and gemstones valued at more than $1 billion from the historic Green Vault museum in Germany on Monday morning, according to media reports.

The thieves gained access to the Dresden museum by twisting back iron grill bars on a ground-floor window, after a nearby fire at a power distributor likely disabled the museum’s alarm system, German news outlets said.

The Green Vault collection, which is housed in Dresden Castle, was created in the 18th century by Saxon ruler Augustus the Strong. It contains a large assortment of jewels, including a 648-carat sapphire, a gift from Russia’s Czar Peter the Great. The Saxon crown jewels are also stored there. However, one of the collection’s most valuable pieces, the 41-carat Green Diamond, is believed to be safe, having been on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York at the time of the heist, German newspaper Bild noted.

“Not only were the state art collections robbed, but also we Saxons,” tweeted Saxony Minister President Michael Kretschmer. “You cannot understand the history of Saxony without the Green Vault. The valuables here have been hard won by the people of our free state for many centuries.”

Police have closed the museum and are searching for the criminals.

Source: DCLA

LVMH to Buy Tiffany for $16 Billion in Largest Luxury-Goods Deal Ever

LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton is set to acquire Tiffany & Co. for $16.2 billion, strengthening the Paris-based luxury group’s position in the global jewelry market and increasing its US presence.

“Tiffany is a company with an unparalleled heritage and unique position in the global jewelry world,” LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault said Monday. The deal will transform LVMH’s watches and jewelry division, the company added.

LVMH first made an unsolicited offer to purchase Tiffany for $14.5 billion, or $120 per share, last month. However, Tiffany felt the offer undervalued it, and asked LVMH to raise its bid. The new deal values the US jeweler at $135 per share.

“Following a strategic review that included a thoughtful internal process and expert external advice, the board has concluded that this transaction with LVMH provides an exciting path forward with a group that appreciates and will invest in Tiffany’s unique assets and strong human capital, while delivering a compelling price with value certainty to our shareholders,” explained Roger Farah, chairman of Tiffany’s board of directors.

Acquiring Tiffany will help LVMH compete against rivals Kering and Richemont in the luxury jewelry sector, RBC analyst Rogerio Fujimori was quoted in media reports as saying.

LVMH is also home to jewelry and watch brands Bulgari, Chaumet and TAG Heuer. The move would mark a return to LVMH for Tiffany CEO Alessandro Bogliolo, who previously held senior positions at Bulgari and Sephora, another LVMH label.

“Tiffany has been focused on executing on our key strategic priorities to drive sustainable long term growth,” said Bogliolo. “This transaction…will provide further support, resources and momentum for those priorities as we evolve towards becoming the next-generation luxury jeweler.”

Source: DCLA